Hills science diet

[Ausrural]

On another thread, someone suggested that hills science diet isn't perhaps a particularly good brand of dog food ... I was wondering why that is? Over here it is heavily promoted by vets and pet stores

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[hunterjumper12]

From what I have heard, it's because Hill's Science Diet has a lot of fillers, especially things such as corn, I think. I feed my dog Proplan, and she loves it And it's not supposed to have any fillers in it either.

 

[VeganSoprano]

My major issue is the ingredients relative to the price. An example is SD feline adult optimal care:

Ingredients: chicken by-product meal, whole grain corn, brewer's rice, corn gluten meal, animal fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), chicken liver flavor, (list of added vitamins and minerals)

Based on this list, the food contains no muscle meat (not actually bad, but by-products are less expensive) and probably contains more grain by weight than meat. This isn't my first choice of ingredients for an obligate carnivore. And around here, a 6# bag retails for $19.95 at PETsMART. Now, I'm not saying your pet will be unhealthy if fed SD and I'm not saying your pet will be healthier if fed something else. I'm also not discounting the value of therapeutic (i.e. "prescription") diets for those who would benefit from them. I am saying that I feel my $20 are better spent on a diet that includes fewer grains and carbohydrates and incorporates at least some muscle meat. Then I'd feel like I'm spending my money on actual cat food instead of a brand name printed on the bag.

Hill's has historically marketed itself very heavily to vets and given away huge quantities of free food to veterinary hospital staff. They also employ nutritionists who work at various hospitals, promoting Hill's products (although in fairness, they are not *against* other foods, just pro-Hill's). Where I work, we had one working with us full-time for several months. This may be changing, though. Hill's recently completely discontinued the discount they used to provide us as hospital staff. Needless to say, many people who have fed Hill's are looking elsewhere rather than pay full price. Royal Canin has stepped in and we'll probably be giving them most of our business.

 

[Ausrural]

Very interesting, thanks for that. The other brands mentioned are also fairly heavily promoted here, along with advance.

 

[EllieGirl89]

I'm a bit of a dog food snob myself and am having a hard time trying to decide what I'll do in vet school, when they are throwing free bags of dog food at me. Stick with the Blue Buffalo, which I consider a higher quality of food than Hills and such, or will I cave for four years in order to save a couple bucks? I still haven't really decided.


Ingredients: chicken by-product meal, whole grain corn, brewer's rice, corn gluten meal, animal fat (preserved with mixed tocopherols and citric acid), chicken liver flavor, (list of added vitamins and minerals)

I don't really like to see by-products in the food at all. I mean...think about the by-products of the chicken industry. Yuck and a half. I REALLY don't like to see corn in there, especially not the second ingredient, and never anything with "gluten" in it. Brewer's rice is whatever, but it's a lower-quality grain. I also wish that the type of animal fat were specified. I don't particularly care for any artificial flavors or colors, but that too is pretty much whatever, especially that far down on the list.

Deboned Chicken, Chicken Meal, Whole Ground Brown Rice, Whole Ground Barley, Oatmeal, Tomato Pomace (natural source of Lycopene), Natural Chicken Flavor, Chicken Fat (naturally preserved with Mixed Tocopherols), Whole Potatoes, Peas, Flaxseed(natural source of Omega 3 and 6 Fatty Acids), Whole Carrots, Whole Sweet Potatoes, Blueberries, Cranberries, Barley Grass, Dried Parsley, Garlic, Alfalfa Meal, Dried Kelp, [Insert list of vitamins and minerals here].

First two ingredients are high-quality meat sources of protein. The second three are high-quality grains. Natural chicken flavor, ehhh, again, I don't really like added flavors but I can overlook it. A named animal fat, preserved with tocopherols (basically Vitamin E), and then a whole mess of fruits and vegetables.

A 40-lb bag of the large breed Hill's food is $42.99. The 40-lb bag of Blue Buffalo is normally around $46.99. When it's on sale it can be found for around $40. When it's not on sale? I'll happily pay the extra $4 for the food with the higher-quality ingredients. I mean, the Iams Proactive Health Large Breed food has just about the same quality of ingredients as the Hill's (perhaps even a little bit better) and it's $29.99 for a 40-lb bag.

So I guess Hill's grinds my gears because I don't understand why they would want you to pay such a high price for a product made with lower-quality ingredients. Especially when the price you'd pay for Hill's is nearly the same as the price you'd pay for a food that's considered "premium."

Now don't get me wrong and don't think I'm knocking anybody for feeding whatever food it is they feed. I'm just going off what I know about dog food ingredients and my own personal preference

 

[thearsonist]

At my SA clinic, all we supply is Hill's and a few Royal Canin and Purina items. I personally do not care for Hill's as an every-day food for cats and dogs. However, I do recommend Hill's for their line of prescription diets (a/d, c/d, i/d, ect.)

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

I agree with thearsonist. I'm not at all a fan of Hill's regular foods, although dogs and cats can do ok on them (although many others do poorly).

I mean, tons of people do well on a cruddy diet and live a long time, but it doesn't mean they are at their healthiest on it, you know?

I will say that their prescription diets have helped an incredible number of animals, though, and I would recommend them if such a case arose and another, higher quality formulation could not be found, or tailored homecooking was not an option due to ingredient availability (interestingly, homecooking tends to cost less than kibble by far, it just takes a lot more planning, especially if the animal has a medical condition).

 

[Braki]

I'm having the same dilemma. My cats are on Orijen but I get free food from Iams or free Purina prescription diets. I think ultimately though, I'll just keep them on Orijen and donate my Iams bags to the SPCA.

 

[168135]

What about all of the health concerns related to feeding a food high in fillers? I remember coming home and seeing that my dad had started feeding our overweight cat Zellers brand catfood (which I guess is equivalent to feeding Meow Mix). To convince him to switch to something of higher quality, I found infomation on how cheap foods cause diabetes, obesity, cats having to eat twice as much food in order to get the same amount of nutrients, and that causes cats to use the litterbox more. We switched from a $3 bag of garbage to a $15 bag of Felidae. She was eating less (which saved us money), dropped to a healthy weight and her energy levels increased. If an expensive, higher quality food is that beneficial, I could never feed my pets something of such a low quality just because it's free.

I'm wondering if the evidence for these health benefits are legit. I asked a pet store for donations, and when the owner found out that I wanted to be a vet, he gave me this huge lecture on how horrible Hills is and how vets carry it because the amount of profit they make from it is high. He also gave me some reading materials. I skimmed through it. It talked about how Science Diet was created during one of the wars. They created a pet food made from grains because there wasn't any meat, the cellulose in it was actually derived from wood... I stopped reading it there. It seemed very extreme and I didn't know whether to buy into it or not. I'm not a vet. I'm not an expert in animal nutrition. Right now, I don't know what I think.

I met a guy who had a type of bull dog (valley bull maybe?) that was prone to lymphoma. His vet tells him to put his dog on high-quality Hills and not to feed his dog the grocery store brand because Hills will help prevent cancer. The dog got lymphoma and died. The guy clued in that this brand of Hills was essentially the same as the grocery store brand he used to feed his dog needless to say, he was NOT happy with his vet.

 

[EllieGirl89]

=sigh= I felt the same way. Unfortunately, I've at least half caved.... One dog is on Wellness still, but the new dog is on Science Diet. Couldn't turn down a giant free bag of food each month. And once the Wellness is gone, I might try the other dog on Purina, since I can get that for free too. Purina >>> Hills, at least, in my opinion. I cannot feed Hills to the one dog-- makes her really sick. She was fine on Pro Plan as a pup, so I'm crossing my fingers.... I love the wellness, but $60 for a 27 lb bag makes me cry, when I know I can get other products for free.

Absolutely. That's actually why I switched from Wellness. I was feeding Wellness and then it just started to break the bank. Blue Buffalo, while not *as* good as Wellness is still an excellent food and a good compromise IMO. I got my mom, even, penny-pincher/bargain shopper extraordinaire, to switch her dogs from the yucky store-brand food she had them on to Blue Buff.

I like the idea of keeping my dog on his same food and then donating the free food to a shelter.

 

[EllieGirl89]

For anyone looking for more information, check out The Dog Food Project.
The page I just linked is their information about reading dog food labels but there's lots of other really interesting information on there too. If you go to the home page you can find a list of current food recalls and such. Really, really good and informational site.

 

[primatevetjess]

I could never feed my pets something of such a low quality just because it's free.

My cats are all very healthy, perfect BCS, and have comments in the vet hospital's records commenting on how healthy, shiny, and beautiful their coats are. They are all on Science Diet. I even tried once to switch them to a "higher quality" food, one hated it and wouldn't eat it and one had perpetual diarrhea, even after a very slow transition.

Yes, I get one 20 lb. bag of food free every month, and up to 2 more bags for $4 each, but I'm not feeding them Science Diet "just because it's free." I'm feeding them Science Diet because they like it, are doing really well on it, AND I'm saving a TON of money. Which, as a non-trad in vet school with a husband living 6 hours away (2 households, one income), is actually very important.

 

[StartingoverVet]

I like the idea of keeping my dog on his same food and then donating the free food to a shelter.

Careful as most of the companies specifically prohibit this practice. It is usually for your personal use only (and yes, they do say you cannot give it to shelters).

 

[EllieGirl89]

Careful as most of the companies specifically prohibit this practice. It is usually for your personal use only (and yes, they do say you cannot give it to shelters).

I figured as much. Somebody else who posted above me mentioned it and it sounds like a nice idea. But I can understand why they wouldn't want people doing such a thing. The point is to woo you with their free stuff, and having you take it and then give it to shelters wouldn't benefit them any, so it makes sense.

 

[FutureDVM2016]

I have found that I can ONLY feed Science Diet to my dog... I've tried so many types of food to find the right one and Science Diet is the only one that doesnt make him itch!! He will scratch sores onto his skin he itches so bad. I feel bad for him. As long as he's on the right food, he has no issues... not sure what he's allergic to, but its something...

 

[Braki]

Careful as most of the companies specifically prohibit this practice. It is usually for your personal use only (and yes, they do say you cannot give it to shelters).

It probably depends on the school, then. When the Iams food rep sent an email about how we can start placing pet food orders within the next week or two, she specifically said that if we wanted to donate our bags to the SPCA, to email her and let her know.

 

[breenie]

I feed my kitty Solid Gold... which is on the cheaper end of the snotty cat foods, and I'm not particularly convinced it's any better. He gets some Friskies wet food every day though to trick him into drinking more water (I make it a soup), and if you look at the guaranteed analysis and the ingredients list, the Friskies really isn't that bad. The "recipes" vary, and I go for the ones with highest protein, lowest carb ratio.

Should someone throw bags of free food at me, I would likely feed that instead. Kitty is a fatty, and will eat absolutely anything thrown at him. Up until a year ago, he lived 12 years eating grocery store brand, and hasn't had single health problem other than being a little tubby.

 

[VeganSoprano]

I'm personally a little skeptical of the "guaranteed analysis" thing on the label. After all, you could combine ground cockroaches (protein) rendered bacon fat (fat) and sawdust (carbohydrate) with vitamin and mineral supplements and still get an okay looking "guaranteed analysis" label. But that's not enough to make it anything I'd call food.

 

[sumstorm]

My advice to anyone with any interest or opinion on pet food is to take an animal nutrition class from a university. OSU, NCSU, Harvard Extension, Purdue, and Rutgers all offer distance learning nutrition classes.

5 years ago I was of some similar opinions about the quality of food. What I learned about nutrition has completly changed my thought process on feeding my own animals, the use of raw diets, and the quality of commercial diets.

Strangely, rather than becoming more snobbish, I have actually become much more open to a variety of options and opinions. I have also found that to be true with most people who take nutrition classes. I also learned immensely valuable information such as 'by-products' also include organ meat, which is often prefered in whole food and raw diets, ingredients lists include wet and dry ingredients which greatly alters ranking, ingredient splitting is used by a variety of companies, and feeding trials are amazingly useful in studying food, but in also determining what food is best for your animals. I also learned how to detect nutrition issues.

I do not get any food free; I do get food discounted. However, I also make my own raw diet. I am one of the very few people I know who does raw 'right' by actually making sure the nutrient content is accurate to my calculations. Even so, I don't actually know bioabsorption.

Even if you are adamently opposed to big name brands, taking a nutrition class can help you immensely in understanding how to improve your own feeding regimen. Far more useful than listening to random opinions.

 

[EllieGirl89]

I actually did take an animal nutrition class winter quarter. I learned a lot and I really liked it; however it did not change my opinions. When we were assigned rations to formulate on paper all I could think of was *gag* at the ingredients he gave us to find the proportions of for the appropriate amount of protein, fat, etc.

 

[BaliDoll]

This is something I have been thinking of a lot. I read the ingredients in the foods we sell at my work and I just cringe. I am a snob, I feed my two dogs wellness core, and I am BROKE because of it, but I feel like they are a lot healthier. Since starting my corgi on it he's stopped limping, lost a lot of weight he needed to, and has a lot more stamina- on a LOT less food!

I don't like grain in pet food, they are not supposed to be eating corn. Corn isn't even nutritious for humans, it's one of the most corrupt, modified, horrible vegetables there is now a days, we use it in everything... it's gross.

It seems like the hospital makes a LOT of money off the pet food, so we sell it, and that's the only reason. I haven;'t asked the docs their opinions on it, but we have certain ones that EVERY chance they get will try to sell cans of Hills...

Dogfoodanalysis.com really opened my eyes a few years ago and ever since I have not been able to see a dog food carried at a vet or grocery store without feeling sickened people think their dog is really okay eating that crap. My mom feeds her dogs ol' roy...... it makes me wanna die.

 

[sumstorm]

It seems like the hospital makes a LOT of money off the pet food, so we sell it, and that's the only reason. I haven;'t asked the docs their opinions on it, but we have certain ones that EVERY chance they get will try to sell cans of Hills...

Why not ask what the mark up is? At most of the places I work, and many of the vets on VIN confirmed, they are often making less than a few dollars per bag. Even at a couple dollars per bag, it is really hard to compensate for the cost of staffing, storage, shipping, etc. I'd be really curious if they are making as much money as you think, because I know our vets weren't...and it was a massive headache. They stocked food for the convenience of their clients...as apparently ignoble as that is.

 

[VeganSoprano]

From what I know as a hospital employee and former pet supply store employee, industry standard markup on food is 40%. At pet supply stores, markup on toys and treats and other accessories is 100%. The hospital where I work actually loses money by stocking food. For stores, it's what gets people in the door week after week, but it's not where they make their real money.

 

[Nexx]

Why not ask what the mark up is? At most of the places I work, and many of the vets on VIN confirmed, they are often making less than a few dollars per bag. Even at a couple dollars per bag, it is really hard to compensate for the cost of staffing, storage, shipping, etc. I'd be really curious if they are making as much money as you think, because I know our vets weren't...and it was a massive headache. They stocked food for the convenience of their clients...as apparently ignoble as that is.

Yeah, I can confirm that pet food sales in a vet clinic are not typically a big money maker particularly non-prescription diets. I did the pricing for our restricted protein diets for our dermatology dept a few years ago now. If you move a large volume of pet food (i.e. pet stores) then it is money maker. Vets just don't have the space or staff to move enough to make it a huge part of the practice.

Everything about this thread screams I like to read marketing information and base my opinions on that. Do you really think that because you spend $4/bag more on a food you are getting that much higher quality? Really? If these companies are making smaller batches (less cost-effective), using 'better' carb sources, 'better' protein sources, +/- other items of questionable (well good marketing anyhow) benefit, how are they able to sell you the food for so cheap? I can guarantee you it isn't just because they want to see spot and fluffy live happy healthy lives--they are out to make a profit.

 

[BaliDoll]

It's not ignoble to supply any food, it's good to have a one stop shop where people can get things they need for their pets, and a vet practice should be able to make a profit. I just hate to our docs suggesting these foods purely because they are there, because most people will say "This person is a doctor, they know what is best." and buy it when it may not be the 100% best thing they could be feeding... I don't know how to explain..

 

[EllieGirl89]

Everything about this thread screams I like to read marketing information and base my opinions on that. Do you really think that because you spend $4/bag more on a food you are getting that much higher quality? Really? If these companies are making smaller batches (less cost-effective), using 'better' carb sources, 'better' protein sources, +/- other items of questionable (well good marketing anyhow) benefit, how are they able to sell you the food for so cheap? I can guarantee you it isn't just because they want to see spot and fluffy live happy healthy lives--they are out to make a profit.

Not really sure what you're getting at here. The information my opinions on dog food are based on is not marketing information, but research I've done for myself. I don't know if you were referring to my first reply with the $4 more comment (I'm guessing so, because I specifically mentioned $4), but in the case of the specific example I provided, YES, I do believe that the food that's $4 is superior. Not because it's $4 more but because the food that's $4 less is ridiculously overpriced. It's not spending $4 more than a reasonably priced food and expecting to get superior quality, it's spending $4 more on a food that probably should be worth $20 less than it is. The price doesn't really mean a whole lot, it's knowing how to read the label and understanding the ingredients.

And yes, they DO want to see your animal like happy healthy lives, BECAUSE they are out to make a profit. Think about it. Are they going to make a bigger profit if Fluffy lives to be 10 years old or 12 years old? If their food provides higher quality, superior nutrition resulting in better health and a longer life for Fluffy? They could sell you a lot more food in those extra couple of years.

 

[EllieGirl89]

It's not ignoble to supply any food, it's good to have a one stop shop where people can get things they need for their pets, and a vet practice should be able to make a profit. I just hate to our docs suggesting these foods purely because they are there, because most people will say "This person is a doctor, they know what is best." and buy it when it may not be the 100% best thing they could be feeding... I don't know how to explain..

I understand what you're saying. I have been told that a lot of vets recommend the foods they do BECAUSE of the huge push from companies like Hill's during vet school and whatnot. And let's face it-the ingredients in dog food really aren't something a lot of people put a ton of thought into unless they have a specific interest in it. I personally hope that as a vet I will be able to recommend the food I think is best. Then again I'm not there yet and maybe my position will change.

 

[sumstorm]

And yes, they DO want to see your animal like happy healthy lives, BECAUSE they are out to make a profit. Think about it. Are they going to make a bigger profit if Fluffy lives to be 10 years old or 12 years old? If their food provides higher quality, superior nutrition resulting in better health and a longer life for Fluffy? They could sell you a lot more food in those extra couple of years.

Which is also true for the major name brands.

For a vet to recommend the absolute ideal food for each pet, they would need to commit that pet to a number of very expensive food trials and/or referr to a vet nutritionist. Having gone that route (costs start at a couple grand) I can honestly say most folks won't do that. This is what always amazes me 'vets are being bad' by recommending a food they are comfortable with for a variety of reasons (including actual food studies unlike many of the 'premium' foods) but clients are being duped even if they themselves are unwilling to go to the extra expense to find the best food themselves. Seriously, how many folks have worked with a vet nutritionist? put thier money where their mouths are when it comes to nutrition?

 

[BaliDoll]

I understand what you're saying. I have been told that a lot of vets recommend the foods they do BECAUSE of the huge push from companies like Hill's during vet school and whatnot. And let's face it-the ingredients in dog food really aren't something a lot of people put a ton of thought into unless they have a specific interest in it. I personally hope that as a vet I will be able to recommend the food I think is best. Then again I'm not there yet and maybe my position will change.

Exactly. I just want to see recommendations based on actual quality rather than the companies saying "this is good food, here is some for free!" and that being good enough. Understanding nutrition for animals is something not many people give weight to it seems like... same with humans though, too, so.

 

[EllieGirl89]

Which is also true for the major name brands.

For a vet to recommend the absolute ideal food for each pet, they would need to commit that pet to a number of very expensive food trials and/or referr to a vet nutritionist. Having gone that route (costs start at a couple grand) I can honestly say most folks won't do that. This is what always amazes me 'vets are being bad' by recommending a food they are comfortable with for a variety of reasons (including actual food studies unlike many of the 'premium' foods) but clients are being duped even if they themselves are unwilling to go to the extra expense to find the best food themselves. Seriously, how many folks have worked with a vet nutritionist? put thier money where their mouths are when it comes to nutrition?

I do understand that it is not always practical to perform the food trials and such, which is why we've often got to do what we can with what we have. But if a dog is having allergy problems or GI upset or something along those lines that is thought to be food-related, my first thought would be to suggest a higher quality food made with fewer fillers and by-products, fewer things that could be causing such problems. And again, sometimes that's not even the problem. When I worked at a dog kennel, we had a dog come in quite regularly who was severely allergic to everything that WASN'T corn. I'd never heard of that, but his food was purely corn-based and the only treats he was allowed were Fritos. He did great on that diet. I don't think "vets are bad" for recommending whatever food it is they are comfortable with, I just feel like if more vets and people in general did a little digging they could easily educate themselves further on just what it is they are recommending/feeding. The information is out there for those who seek it, myself included. Perhaps we could all stand to keep a more open mind. I get what you're saying. I really do. I just look at it a little differently is all =)

 

[breenie]

I'm personally a little skeptical of the "guaranteed analysis" thing on the label. After all, you could combine ground cockroaches (protein) rendered bacon fat (fat) and sawdust (carbohydrate) with vitamin and mineral supplements and still get an okay looking "guaranteed analysis" label. But that's not enough to make it anything I'd call food.

Hence why my eyes travel to the ingredients list, too, but I find the analysis is great for comparison.

For instance, the fish flavored friskies have the highest amount of carbs, and while the beef flavors have more protein, they're also fattier. Kitty gets the poultry without gravy one because it's lowest in carbs/fat and maximizes protein, while still having, "Turkey, poultry-by products, water, meat by-products" as the first 4 ingredients.

Also I second taking a real nutrition course. Kinda broadens your perspective once you find out what they feed cows.

 

[NStarz]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but since it's being somewhat discussed...

I thought I would hate nutrition, but it seems like it would be a really interesting class (and would broaden the list of schools I can apply to). While I think learning all about food animal nutrition would be interesting, I'm much more interested in companion animal nutrition. It seems like a lot of the distance learning courses focus on FA--any ones that give you a good taste of SA nutrition, as well? (I live in NJ, so I'm probably going to end up going with Rutgers' class because of cost, but I'm interested in the responses...)

 

[breenie]

Not sure if this is the right place to post this, but since it's being somewhat discussed...

I thought I would hate nutrition, but it seems like it would be a really interesting class (and would broaden the list of schools I can apply to). While I think learning all about food animal nutrition would be interesting, I'm much more interested in companion animal nutrition. It seems like a lot of the distance learning courses focus on FA--any ones that give you a good taste of SA nutrition, as well? (I live in NJ, so I'm probably going to end up going with Rutgers' class because of cost, but I'm interested in the responses...)

The basics of nutrition cover all animals, and those courses tend to be really heavy on the basics. Ruminants are unique because they aren't monogastrics like a lot of other domestic animals, and I think they do deserve the time they get because they are so anatomically different! We spent an entire lecture talking about pet food advertising vs actual nutritional value, and brought up cats/dogs quite a bit in lectures. Our lectures were never species focused, really, except for the companion animals. I wouldn't sweat it that some courses seem food animal based. You'll get a lot from the course as long as YOU want to. I was that girl in lecture asking about cats all the time (despite a larger interest in bovines).

 

[NStarz]

Haha, thanks for your responses guys!

 

[WalktheDog81]

I am glad that you all have generated this thread.

I am with those of you who have the 'snob' predilection to buy the premium brands, but with limited funds! I have to share that I was feeding Wellness CORE dry with some Innova canned, and my young male neutered cat was developing urinary tract problems (straining, developing calculi visible on xray). Since this finding, I have been adding water and giving less dry and more canned to increase the moisture content of his food. He is no longer straining to urinate, thankfully. The moral is that your cat's metabolism might not respond as intended to the 'best' food.

I second (or third, whatever we're up to now . . . ) the value of the nutrition class in undergrad for broadening one's perspective. My animal nutrition prof. tried to disabuse us of the value of the premium foods by boasting that he fed a very cheap food available at the local feed'n'grain/Tractor Supply. Since it met AAFCO standards, it was good enough for his pets-- in both the dog and cat varieties. I think this was partly a rhetorical stance to get people agitated in 8 am lecture, but I understood his point, which I interpreted as: the animals get what they need from this food, and corn as a carb source isn't inherently bad, but I did not think he did the other side any justice. For instance, it might have been beneficial to ask if we need to start thinking beyond the macronutrients (fats, carbs, protein) and vitamins and minerals to investigate the value of antioxidants, phytochemicals, etc. But there wasn't much time to address this. In fact, the course was generously designed to serve more as a resource of material for future reference because so much was covered. We learned a lot about ruminant nutrition, and I thought it was interesting in and of itself. And if you are just interested in companion animal nutrition it can be an interesting point of comparison. Also consider that horses and rabbits have similar digestive systems, (albeit on much different scales!) so if you want to treat 'exotics' as part of your companion practice, the nutrition course is a great place to build from because many of the health issues in rabbits, especially, stem from popular misconceptions about diet. (Timothy is your friend!)

Sorry to be long-winded. Thanks for the external links, too. Interested to hear more.

 

[cmeowb]

agreed about taking nutrition course for the sole purpose of becoming more educated on how to read a label. I have read extensive threads about this on vin, and am actually interested in doing research in/after school on feline diets... what i've learned is that vet nutrition programs in schools are largely sponsored by Hills/RC reps, so the vets recommending them aren't trying to just sell the bags, but are regurgitating info they learned in school. the corn/other vegetable-ish ingredients in these diets are not necessarily "bad" for canines, as they have the capability to obtain protein from them...felines are a completely different story, and as has been stated already a few times in this thread are obligate carnivores, so ANY non-meat products in anything they eat (aka dry food), is useless to them and is possibly causing them harm. I know every household cat eats dry food (mine included, i'm working on the all canned diet switch), but the main reason (or at least what I've read) to not recommend any Hills/RC dry food to cats is for that reason. Dogs seem to be the easy keepers in this realm...they (and their gi tracts) seem to be happy with just about anything

 

[breenie]

.felines are a completely different story, and as has been stated already a few times in this thread are obligate carnivores, so ANY non-meat products in anything they eat (aka dry food), is useless to them and is possibly causing them harm.

By useless I'm assuming you mean indigestible? If all plant matter was indigestible for cats, we would have a lot of dead kitties. Cats can digest sugars just like other animals, and they can digest plant proteins, too. Haven't you ever seen a cat willingly eat grass? Obligate carnivore does not equal complete inability to utilize plant-based compounds.

 

[cmeowb]

By useless I'm assuming you mean indigestible? If all plant matter was indigestible for cats, we would have a lot of dead kitties. Cats can digest sugars just like other animals, and they can digest plant proteins, too. Haven't you ever seen a cat willingly eat grass? Obligate carnivore does not equal complete inability to utilize plant-based compounds.

sorry, wrote that a little late on the overnight shift at work. this vet lisa pierson is a fanatic about cats..she has a website catinfo.org, which claims that cats are incapable of utilizing the protein found in plant matter. idk how much research backs up her claims, but she writes novels about this stuff both on that website and vin. disregard if i sounded crazy! and yes...i can't have plants in my house because my cats ravage them

 

[KiaKia]

I'm personally a little skeptical of the "guaranteed analysis" thing on the label. After all, you could combine ground cockroaches (protein) rendered bacon fat (fat) and sawdust (carbohydrate) with vitamin and mineral supplements and still get an okay looking "guaranteed analysis" label. But that's not enough to make it anything I'd call food.

What would be wrong with insect-containing cat food? Insects are mostly protein, and many small carnivores eat them, including cats. It's more "natural" than any fish or livestock with the exception of poultry.

I can see owners having no problem feeding a "lobster/crab bisque" type of dinner cat food, why other arthropods would be excluded seems to be a matter of taste.

On a related note, I don't get why cats, terrestrial animals, are fed so much tuna(-flavored food), a rather large saltwater fish.

 

[laurafinn]

I have read extensive threads about this on vin

Careful, VIN is emphatically only for veterinarians and vet students. The membership feels strongly about this.

what i've learned is that vet nutrition programs in schools are largely sponsored by Hills/RC reps, so the vets recommending them aren't trying to just sell the bags, but are regurgitating info they learned in school.

I don't think this is true. There are extracurricular talks given by Hill's, but nutrition class is taught by lecturers unaffiliated with the big pet food companies.

felines are a completely different story, and as has been stated already a few times in this thread are obligate carnivores, so ANY non-meat products in anything they eat (aka dry food), is useless to them and is possibly causing them harm.

Sorry, you couldn't be more wrong here. Cats need meat because they have an absolute need for certain amino acids that cannot be found naturally in plant-based sources. Plants generally do not cause harm (lilies and such being the exception).

 

[VeganSoprano]

What would be wrong with insect-containing cat food? Insects are mostly protein, and many small carnivores eat them, including cats. It's more "natural" than any fish or livestock with the exception of poultry.

I can see owners having no problem feeding a "lobster/crab bisque" type of dinner cat food, why other arthropods would be excluded seems to be a matter of taste.

On a related note, I don't get why cats, terrestrial animals, are fed so much tuna(-flavored food), a rather large saltwater fish.

It's not so much a question of "natural" as what I will pay money to purchase. If a cockroach-based food is really inexpensive, it might have a place. But there's absolutely no way I'd be willing to pay $2-3/pound for the stuff, like I do for my cats' food.

 

[breenie]

sorry, wrote that a little late on the overnight shift at work. this vet lisa pierson is a fanatic about cats..she has a website catinfo.org, which claims that cats are incapable of utilizing the protein found in plant matter. idk how much research backs up her claims, but she writes novels about this stuff both on that website and vin. disregard if i sounded crazy! and yes...i can't have plants in my house because my cats ravage them

Cats can digest plant protein. It probably doesn't have 100% bioavailability, but nothing ever does. You can read on the internet how monogastrics digest and utilize protein without too much effort or searching.

ETA a cat cannot exclusively live on munching on corn cobs, but Hills can get away with feeding a plant-heavy diet by adding taurine. You can look that up on the internet, too.

 

[cmeowb]

Cats can digest plant protein. It probably doesn't have 100% bioavailability, but nothing ever does. You can read on the internet how monogastrics digest and utilize protein without too much effort or searching.

ETA a cat cannot exclusively live on munching on corn cobs, but Hills can get away with feeding a plant-heavy diet by adding taurine. You can look that up on the internet, too.

i'm sorry, i completely mis-spoke...like i said, posting too late on the overnight shift...what breenie said

 

[Jamr0ckin]

I'm a huge Science Diet advocate. They get a bad rep for using grains and by-products, but if you really look at what they're adding, it is ok. By-products are what humans don't consume, and as someone already said, this includes internal organs which are high in protein. (The male lion in a pride eats the organs, and the lionesses get the muscles which is left over. think about that). Science Diet is named for a reason. It goes WAY above the minimal AAFCO feeding trials and does extensive research to back up all their claims. They are one of the only pet foods that list ingredients based on DRY weight and not weight. it is easy to list chicken meat as the first ingredient on the bag if going by wet weight. Corn is NOT bad. It has a nice AA profile, it is hard for humans to digest because of the hull, but corn MEAL makes it easier to digest and extract the nutrients from it. The recipe doesn't change - it is guaranteed that bags from different batches contain the same ratio and quality of ingredients, hence why d/d foods are more expensive now because the lack of high quality novel protein meat.

Is Science Diet costly? Perhaps, but you can feed a cat and most dogs for less than $1 a day. You are paying for the research that went into the food, the assurance that the recipe is the same every bag, and high quality ingredients.

 

[ATX00]

They are one of the only pet foods that list ingredients based on DRY weight and not weight. it is easy to list chicken meat as the first ingredient on the bag if going by wet weight.

Science Diet provides nutrient analysis based on dry matter, but I'm not sure why that's a big deal since it's pretty basic math to figure this out from a typical guaranteed analysis. As for the ingredient list, I would be shocked to learn that it's any different in order than any other food, i.e. it's by wet weight like everything else. I'm 99.9% certain that listing in order of decreasing (wet) weight is an FDA requirement.

The recipe doesn't change - it is guaranteed that bags from different batches contain the same ratio and quality of ingredients, hence why d/d foods are more expensive now because the lack of high quality novel protein meat.

Citation please that Science Diet is guaranteed to have less variation than other pet foods. I'm not saying I don't believe you -- I've just never heard that claim.

Edit: The ingredient list order is definitely required to include water content, so Science Diet is the same as everything else. See here: http://www.fda.gov/animalveterinary/resourcesforyou/ucm047113.htm

All ingredients are required to be listed in order of predominance by weight. The weights of ingredients are determined as they are added in the formulation, including their inherent water content. This latter fact is important when evaluating relative quantity claims, especially when ingredients of different moisture contents are compared.

 

[WhtsThFrequency]

Corn...has a nice AA profile

Uh. No. Corn doesn't...only animal proteins have a complete AA profile. Lysine defiency is a big problem with corn-based diets, especially when fed in excess and even worse over long periods of time.

http://jas.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/7/1974 (for example. yes, this is in ruminants, but it proves deficiences happen even in herbivorous animals)

It's also low in tryptophan. Deficiencies have historically been a sporadic problem in developing countries that have limited agricultural access/products.

.... but if you really look at what they're adding, it is ok.

BHA is not ok. Period. And for people who say oh, it only becomes cancerous/dangerous in high doses....remember, these dogs eat this food every single day of their lives. Therefore, it IS a daily, continuous dose of a dietary carcinogen that could be avoided.. If we all ate overprocessed bologna every day for the rest of our lives, I bet we'd be seeing problems from constant cellular assault by certain dangerous preservatives, for example.

 

[thedogisgreen]

bumping this debate back up, not in regards to just hills, but to dog food brands in general... I haven't taken an animal nutrition class (just human) and won't have the chance until vet school, but I've been thinking a lot about the whole brand and raw food vs kibble dilemma lately. We sell sci diet prescription foods at my clinic and I've definitely heard a lot of clients talking about how awful the food is with all the fillers. We have dogs on everything from Costco kibble to super high end raw, frozen, or dehydrated diets. Does it all make that huge a difference? I know there's of course not a perfect answer for what the best food is for each individual pet, but there are just so many types of foods out there and I don't even know what to think. I've had lots of clients ask me in exam rooms about if they should use the grain free diets, and I always just defer the question to the vet. I feel so clueless!

 

[superkelpie]

We have dogs on everything from Costco kibble to super high end raw, frozen, or dehydrated diets. Does it all make that huge a difference?

Hey, I'd like to point out that "Costco kibble" (I'm assuming you mean Kirkland signature?) is actually pretty dang good; few fillers, no by-products, and a decent price. Also one of the few foods my picky dog will stay on, so it must be palatable, as well. I cringe when I go to Costco and see people pick up a bag of pedigree that's priced the same. At any rate, I'd choose it over SD.

 

[that redhead]

=sigh= I felt the same way. Unfortunately, I've at least half caved.... One dog is on Wellness still, but the new dog is on Science Diet. Couldn't turn down a giant free bag of food each month. And once the Wellness is gone, I might try the other dog on Purina, since I can get that for free too. Purina >>> Hills, at least, in my opinion. I cannot feed Hills to the one dog-- makes her really sick. She was fine on Pro Plan as a pup, so I'm crossing my fingers.... I love the wellness, but $60 for a 27 lb bag makes me cry, when I know I can get other products for free.

After a ton of research, I started feeding my picky eater Wellness, too. I pay $54 for a 30# bag. It's expensive but I make room for it in the budget because, from my research, its just better quality. At the small animal clinic I worked at, they had Hills and Royal Canin because the companies give free stuff. But my dog has done very well on Wellness and I like that it isn't by-products and grains. By-products sounds fine until you look closely - it includes all sorts of nasty things that I wouldn't want my dog to eat.

 

[that redhead]

bumping this debate back up, not in regards to just hills, but to dog food brands in general... I haven't taken an animal nutrition class (just human) and won't have the chance until vet school, but I've been thinking a lot about the whole brand and raw food vs kibble dilemma lately. We sell sci diet prescription foods at my clinic and I've definitely heard a lot of clients talking about how awful the food is with all the fillers. We have dogs on everything from Costco kibble to super high end raw, frozen, or dehydrated diets. Does it all make that huge a difference? I know there's of course not a perfect answer for what the best food is for each individual pet, but there are just so many types of foods out there and I don't even know what to think. I've had lots of clients ask me in exam rooms about if they should use the grain free diets, and I always just defer the question to the vet. I feel so clueless!

I had the same questions you did and I did research on the internet (being careful to weigh the claims and take everything with a grain of salt). I took two animal nutrition classes last year and our professor said it doesn't matter if dogs eat grains and fillers and by-products - I think that's incorrect. A lot of dogs have food allergies to the grains and by products (and even some of the meats) that just aren't picked up on. I encourage you to poke around and form your own opinion just because it seems a lot of people in the vet med industry are influenced by the companies that provide free stuff (I'll try to dig up some of the links I found so you can look through them!)

EDIT:
http://www.dogfoodproject.com/
http://www.dogfoodscoop.com/